End of Birthright Citizenship

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The nationality of the child id the same as that of the parents. which side of the border the little shit pops out should be irrelevant if the parents are across the border illegally.

What objective fact am I missing here?

Having the child be the same nationality as the parents makes sense. Much as I may favor a law limiting birthright citizenship, I am not willing to throw out the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So, the only way to do this would be by a Constitutional Amendment.

Not necessarily. If those born here to illegals were covered in a treaty between two countries it would not be the case (as is true for diplomats). They would have to be under the jurisdiction of the country of their parents origin, or a special court set up by the treaty.

[/quote]

I’m not sure that’s completely accurate. In the U.S., treaties have the same force as statutes, and statutes cannot trump the Constitution. Diplomats are a whole different animal altogether. I once did a paper on diplomatic immunity. As I recall, I learned a lot. Unfortunately, I have forgotten it all.

22

People who have pointed out I did state the current law:

Thanks. I really I don’t know the current ins and outs about the law. I’m more disgusted by amnesty and think that it should only be a ploy by our government to find those leeches and kick them out. Its disgarceful to every legal immigrant whenever they grant amnesty to some sneak fence hopper.

However, I do think we should take a more active effort to kick out those people who do come here illegaly. They suck off the system and aren’t the people that built this country. Those people come through here through the imiigration process (On that topic both my grandparents on one side are immigrants and so is my mother.)

Gerrymandering I’m okay with. As long as its the Republicans doing it.

23

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The nationality of the child id the same as that of the parents. which side of the border the little shit pops out should be irrelevant if the parents are across the border illegally.

What objective fact am I missing here?

Having the child be the same nationality as the parents makes sense. Much as I may favor a law limiting birthright citizenship, I am not willing to throw out the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So, the only way to do this would be by a Constitutional Amendment.

Not necessarily. If those born here to illegals were covered in a treaty between two countries it would not be the case (as is true for diplomats). They would have to be under the jurisdiction of the country of their parents origin, or a special court set up by the treaty.

I’m not sure that’s completely accurate. In the U.S., treaties have the same force as statutes, and statutes cannot trump the Constitution. Diplomats are a whole different animal altogether. I once did a paper on diplomatic immunity. As I recall, I learned a lot. Unfortunately, I have forgotten it all.[/quote]

It wouldn’t have to trump the constitution. The constitution says born in the US and subject to its laws. A treaty could hold them not subject to US jurisdiction, either to foreign jurisdiction or to the jurisdiction of an independent treaty court.

That would create other problems of course.

24

[quote]Jim_Bobv2 wrote:
?Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!?

If the US had the same immigration laws 100 to 200 years ago, how many of us that are taking part in this debate would be US citizens?

Personally, I think the US is the best and strongest country in the world and should not be turning it’s back on those in need.

This country was built on the backs of the less fortunate who came here hoping for a better life.

I hope we get back to being that country once again.[/quote]

I think the people born in America are a very small part of the problem. I think the major problem is with the adults. In the South West you have major parts of city?s that are extensions of Mexico. The writing of the signage is in Spanish not English .It is an Invasion. For the most part it is not violent but an invasion just the same.

The Statue of Liberty was dedicated on October 28, 1886 and was designated a National Monument on October 15, 1924. It is part of our history. It is not a Law or a Directive. It was a sentiment of the time. It is possible it?s time is past.

25

Lets make an English First Amendment and a law redefining citizenship, just make it so you have to be American, but also reasonable. We don’t want 4th generation aliens here.

26

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

It wouldn’t have to trump the constitution. The constitution says born in the US and subject to its laws. A treaty could hold them not subject to US jurisdiction, either to foreign jurisdiction or to the jurisdiction of an independent treaty court.

That would create other problems of course.
[/quote]

Intetresting. Judge Alito just noted this argument in response to Senator Schumer during the confirmation hearings.

“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

Of course, he didn’t evaluate it either way – I’ll have to look into this a little more…

27

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Jim_Bobv2 wrote:
?Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!?

If the US had the same immigration laws 100 to 200 years ago, how many of us that are taking part in this debate would be US citizens?

Personally, I think the US is the best and strongest country in the world and should not be turning it’s back on those in need.

This country was built on the backs of the less fortunate who came here hoping for a better life.

I hope we get back to being that country once again.

I think the people born in America are a very small part of the problem. I think the major problem is with the adults. In the South West you have major parts of city?s that are extensions of Mexico. The writing of the signage is in Spanish not English .It is an Invasion. For the most part it is not violent but an invasion just the same.

The Statue of Liberty was dedicated on October 28, 1886 and was designated a National Monument on October 15, 1924. It is part of our history. It is not a Law or a Directive. It was a sentiment of the time. It is possible it?s time is past.
[/quote]

How ironic that the area you are concerned about was actually part of Mexico before Americans invaded and took it.

28

[quote]Dorso wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Jim_Bobv2 wrote:
?Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!?

If the US had the same immigration laws 100 to 200 years ago, how many of us that are taking part in this debate would be US citizens?

Personally, I think the US is the best and strongest country in the world and should not be turning it’s back on those in need.

This country was built on the backs of the less fortunate who came here hoping for a better life.

I hope we get back to being that country once again.

I think the people born in America are a very small part of the problem. I think the major problem is with the adults. In the South West you have major parts of city?s that are extensions of Mexico. The writing of the signage is in Spanish not English .It is an Invasion. For the most part it is not violent but an invasion just the same.

The Statue of Liberty was dedicated on October 28, 1886 and was designated a National Monument on October 15, 1924. It is part of our history. It is not a Law or a Directive. It was a sentiment of the time. It is possible it?s time is past.

How ironic that the area you are concerned about was actually part of Mexico before Americans invaded and took it.[/quote]

True Irony
Timeline
1540?Spanish Francisco Vasquez de Coronado explores Arizona

1752?The first European settlement in Tubac

1821?Arizona becomes part of Mexico

1848?Most of Arizona is given to the U.S. at the end of the Mexican War

1853?The Gadsden Purchase gives the rest of Arizona to the U.S.

1863?The Arizona Territory is created

1877?The first railroad enters Arizona

1886?The end of the Indian Wars

1912?Arizona becomes the 48th state

1936?Hoover Dam is completed

1948?Arizona Indians are given the right to vote

1991?The Central Arizona Project is completed